You're allowed to lie for jihad..

The original angry young jihadi, Zacarious Moussaoui, dropped some bombs in court today, saying he was originally supposed to pilot an aircraft into the White House on 9/11. As Charlie Daniels once said, he "laid it on thicker and heavier as he went", also claiming his teammate was to be shoebomber Richard Reid. It's surprising he didn't say the other teammate was that teenager in Tampa who flew his Cessna into a high-rise.

Don't know about you, but this guy pegs my BS-O-Meter. All evidence so far suggests he was nothing but a wannabee. If KSM actually teamed him with the likes of Richard Reid for an important 9/11 mission we'd have to seriously question AQ's judgment. Reid couldn't even light a match.

One might conclude Zacarious was set up for the fall. For comparison's sake, harken back to the first World Trade Center bombing. A hapless group of Islamofascists were hunkered down in Brooklyn plotting revenge for the arrest of El-Sayid Nosair, who had killed the fiery Rabbi Meir Kahane. Out of the blue appears Ramzi Yousef, who teams with the impressionable Mohammed Salameh to ramp up their flimsy plot into toppling the Trade Towers. After the blast Yousef disappeared before the smoke cleared leaving Salameh wandering around confused, so much so he tried to claim the rental refund for the truck they used to carry the bomb.

In both WTC cases the people left behind to face justice were idiots. Even if Moussaoui wasn't caught in August there's no guarantee he would have accomplished anything in September. Additionally, both attacks featured mysterious handlers, Yousef in 1993 and his Uncle Khalid Mohammed in 2001, which is still a puzzle to many.

He did say one thing that can be believed unequivocally,

"The Prophet says, 'war is deceit,' "Moussaoui later told prosecutor Robert Spencer. "You're allowed to lie for jihad. You're allowed any technique to defeat your enemy."

That is the nature of warfare. Certainly we're not being told everything about the GWoT, probably for good reason.

SPEAKING OF LIES 3/27/06

Both Associated Press and the New York Times have generic stories about the DOCEX documents project. The AP version was run by CNN as well.

Nice of the Times to finally get around the bringing their readers up to speed on this. I thought their effort read a bit condescending with statements such as this:

Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.

The way I read that is, 'what a bunch of right wing yahoos'. Indeed, there is an insidious overtone throughout the article that the project is nothing more than a fruitless exercise in futility designed for crazed right wingers who can't accept the fact that WMDs weren't found...

"Our view is there's nothing in here that changes what we know today," said a senior intelligence official, who would discuss the program only on condition of anonymity because the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, directed his staff to avoid public debates over the documents. "There is no smoking gun on W.M.D., Al Qaeda, those kinds of issues."

Spoken like a true "senior intelligence official speaking on condition of anonymity" who might just be a little worried that some 'yahoo' in Peoria in his pajamas might find something he didn't. The Times even speculates the administration is leaking the docs to keep the war debate going in an effort to boost Bush's poll numbers. And after all, poll numbers are all that matter, right?

AP's attempt was actually fair and balanced, mentioned both Instapundit and Powerline, and is worth a gander.